J.  Weaver 


A  Consideration  of  the 
Acts  of  the  G-eneral 
Conference  of  the 
United  Brethren  in 
Christ  of  1885 


.lA/36 


,//iH  ■:■>•: 


yv3io 


A  CONSIDERATION 


\m 


f  III  mm  11 


United  Bret hre7i>  in   Christ 


OF     1885. 


The  Work  of  the  Commission 


J.  w 


eauer,  D.  D.,   apd   U/.  J.  5f?uey. 


DAYTON,    OHIO: 
United  Brethren  Publishing  House. 


MAr2G192G 


A  CONSIDERATION 


^^0(Jfe«L8t^€> 


IS  if  HE  mm  iPEici 


I 


United  Brethren  in   Christ 


or     1885. 


The  Work  of  the  Commission. 


J.  U/eauer,  D.  D.,   ar?d  U/.  J.  5f?uey. 


DAYTON,   OHIO: 
United  Brethren  Publishing  House. 


CONTENTS, 


Page. 
Ecclesiastical  Government— No  form  in  detail  given  in  the  Word  of  God— 

The  United  Brethren  no  Exception 5 

Adls  of  the  General  Conference  from  1841  to  1885 i5 

The  Commission ^9 

Change  of  Views  on  Question  of  Church   Polity 28 

The  Secrecy  Question -^' 

The  Legal  Aspedls  of  the   Question 34 

Other  Points  of  Law  and  Their  Application 37 

Lay  Delegation v 39 


EjCCl^El^IA^TmAI,   QoYElRNMElNT. 


NO  J^ORM  IN  DETAIL  GIVEN  IN  THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 
THE  UNITED  BRETHREN  NO  EXCEPTION. 


The  object  in  preparing  these  pages  is  to  lay  before  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  some  facts  respecting  the  form  of 
church  government  in  general,  and  of  the  United  Brethren  in  particular. 

In  all  the  ages  past  good  and  wise  men  have  differed  in  their  views.  But 
all  manly  men,  notwithstanding  their  differences,  have  maintained  the  true 
dignity  of  men.  Good  and  wise  men  have  differed  on  some  of  the  great 
truths  of  the  Bible;  and  more  especially  on  questions  of  church  polity.  But 
why  this  difference  of  opinion  ?  There  is  but  one  answer.  No  form  of 
church  government  in  detail  is  given  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This  is  ad- 
mitted by  nearly  all  theologians  and  writers  on  church  polity.  General 
principles  are  given,  but  nothing  more.  The  mode  of  governing  the  Church 
is  left  to  its  own  judgment  and  the  exfgencies  of  time  and  place.  No  one, 
except  through  ignorance  and  sectarian  bigotry,  will  claim  as  divine  the  de- 
tails of  any  form  of  church  polity.  Constitutions,  confessions  of  faith,  and 
general  rules,  are  all  of  human  origin.  If  the  wise  Father  had  intended  that 
the  Church  in  all  time,  and  in  all  places,  should  be  governed  by  one  par- 
ticular form,  he  would  have  given  it;  but  it  is  not  given,  and  we,  therefore, 
conclude  that  the  details  of  all  forms  of  church  government  are  human. 
Good  and  wise  men  may  adopt  them,  but  that  does  not  make  them  divine 
or  infallible. 

The  history  of  the  United  Brethren  Church,  like  the  history  of  every  other 
aggressive  and  progressive  church,  is  a  history  of  changes  in  church  rules. 
Compare  the  disciplines  for  fifty  years,  and  one  can  easily  see  what  changes 


— 6— 

have  been  made.  Every  General  Conference  since  i8i  5  has  made  changes, 
and  some  very  radical  ones  too.  The  exigencies  of  time  suggested  many, 
if  not  all,  of  the  changes  that  were  made.  The  discipline  of  to-day  compared 
with  that  of  fifty  years  ago  is  almost  entirely  new.  One  change  after  another 
has  followed  in  rapid  succession.  I  venerate  the  fathers ;  they  did  a  grand 
and  noble  work  in  their  day  ;  but  those  who  cling  so  tenaciously  to  what  they 
did  would  do  well  to  read  some  of  the  old  disciplines.  For  many  years 
there  was  nothing  in  the  discipline  on  missions,  Sunday-schools,  church- 
erection,  education,  course  of  reading,  etc. 

Otterbein  organized  the  first  congregation  in  Baltimore  in  1774,  and  it 
was  forty-one  years  before  the  first  confession  of  faith  was  adopted.  And 
after  it  was  adopted,  in  181 5,  several  changes  were  made.  The  fathers 
thought  it  was  no  great  harm  to  change  the  confession  of  faith.  As  in- 
creasing light  fell  upon  them  they  would  change.  But  they  seemed  finally 
to  reach  a  point  where  they  thought  it  was  safe  to  say — "Ne  plus  ultra." 
Now,  while  I  have  great  respect  for  their  piety  and  wisdom,  I  also  respect 
the  piety  and  wisdom  of  good  men  of  this  day.  The  fathers  knew  many 
things,  but  they  did  not  know  it  all.  Then  it  should  be  remembered  that 
they  changed  their  articles  of  faith,  and  their  general  rules,  as  often  as 
their  sons  have  done.  If  they  were  blameworthy  at  all,  it  was  in  their 
effort  to  bind  the  membership  in  such  a  marcner  that  it  would  be  next  to 
impossible  ever  to  change  it.  This  was  not  wise,  nor  would  it  be  wise  to- 
day. They  might  have  thought,  and  I  will  put  it  a  little  stronger — they 
should  have  thought,  that  the  Church  in  time  to  come  would  see  as  good 
reasons  for  change  as  they  had  seen  during  their  day. 

The  moral  force  of  the  church  of  Christ  does  not  live  in  any  particular 
form  of  law,  whether  it  be  organic  ol"  legislative,  but  in  the  hearts  of  the 
members  of  Christ's  body.  A  change  of  method  does  not  necessarily  in- 
clude a  change  of  principle.  A  man  whose  opposition  to  an  evil  is  meas- 
ured by  his  adherence  to  a  certain  form  of  law,  is  of  but  little  force  in  the 
church  of  Christ. 

It  was  sixty-three  years  after  Mr.  Otterbein  organized  the  first  congrega- 
tion in  Baltimore  before  the  church  had  a  constitution  at  all.  How  they 
got  on  all  those  years  we  may  not  know,  but  they  grew  and  prospered. 
Finally,  in  1837,  they  formulated  and  adopted  a  constitution,  which,  if  it 
was  acceptable  to  the  members,  was  to  be  ratified  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1841.  When  the  General  Conference  met  in  1841,  instead  of  de- 
claring the  constitution  which  had  been  before  the  Church  for  four  years 


—7— 

"to  be  the  organic  law  of  the  church,  they,  by  usual  parliamentary  process, 
formulated  and  adopted  a  constitution  almost  wholly  different  from  the  one 
that  'lad  been  before  the  church  for  four  years,  and  which  they  by  a  cir- 
cular had  asked  the  members  to  ratify.  It  is  said  by  some  that  the  constitu- 
tion adopted  in  1841  was  only  slightly  changed  from  that  of  1837.  To 
show  how  slight  the  change  was,  we  give  both  • 

CONSTITUTION  OF 

At  a  meeting  of  a  General  Conference  held  by  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ 
in  Germantown,  Ohio,  May  loth,  1837,  it  was  resolved  that  a  constitution  should 
be  formed  for  the  better  government  of  the  Church. 

We  as  members  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  in  order  to  retain  a  /-^r- 
fect  union, — accomplish  the  ends  oi  justice  and  equity, — insure  ecclesiastical  zs  well 
as  domestic  tranquility ,  provide  for  the  comnion  interest  of  the  Churchy — promote  the 
general  welfare  of  society,  and  to  secure  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  to  ourselves,  our 
posterity,  and  our  fellow  men  in  general ;  do  ordain  and  establish  the  following 
constitution,  for  the  Church  aforesaid  : 

ARTICLE    I, 

Sec.  I.  All  ecclesiastical  power  herein  granted,  to  make  or  repeal  any  rule  of 
Discipline,  shall  be  vested  in  a  General  Conference,  which  shall  consist  of  min- 
isters chosen  and  elected  by  the  members,  in  every  conference  district  through- 
out the  society.  Nevertheless  nothing  shall  be  done  so  as  to  change  the  article 
of  faith  or  in  anywise  destroy  the  itinerant  plan. 

Sec.  2.  No  minister  shall  be  considered  eligible  for  election  until  he  has  stood 
in  the  capacity  as  elder  for  the  term  of  three  years,  having  maintained  a  good 
moral  character  during  that  time.  Any  elder  recfeiving  a  transfer  from  one  con- 
ference to  another,  shall  not  be  considered  eligible  for  election  under  a  term  of 
two  years,  and  not  then  without  a  sufficient  recommendation  from  the  conference 
of  which  he  had  been  a  membei. 

Sec.  3.  The  number  of  delegates  from  each  conference  district  shall  not  exceed 
one  for  every  five  hundred  members.  But  should  it  so  happen  that  a  conference 
would  be  formed  in  a  territory  not  having  five  hundred  members  within  its  dis- 
trict, that  conference  shall  nevertheless  have  one  delegate  to  represent  its  mem- 
bers in  General  Conference. 

Sec.  4.  If  any  vacancies  should  occur  through  sickness  or  otherwise,  after  the 
election  of  delegates,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  presiding  elder  or  elders  imme- 
diately to  notify  the  next  highest  on  the  list  of  votes  that  he  is  now  a  member  to 
represient  that  district  in  the  ensuing  General  Conference. 

Sec.  5.  The  bishops  shall  upon  all  occasions  be  considered  members  of  the 
General  Conference,  to  preside  as  the  organs  of  that  body  as  in  annual  confer- 
ences.    Bishops  shall  be  elected  every  four  years,  during  the  sitting  of  the  Gen* 


— 8— 

eral  Conference,  by  the  members  of  that  body,  from  among  the  elders  throughout 
the  Church,  who  may  have  stood  in  that  capacity  for  a  term,  not  less  than  six 
years. 

Sec.  6.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  held  once  every  four  years.  At  the 
adjournment  of  which  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  same  to  publish  or  cause  to  be 
published  (excepting  such  parts  as  may  not  be  considered  expedient)  all  their, 
proceedings,  for  the  benefit  of  society  in  general, 

ARTICLE   II. 

Sec.  I.     The  members  in  each  conference  district  shall  solely  have  the  privi 
lege  of  choosing  and  electing  the  delegates  for  General  Conference,  which  shall' 
invariably  be  done  at  least  three  months  previous  to  the  sitting  of  the  same. 

Sec.  2.  In  the  election  of  delegates  for  General  Conference,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  each  annual  conference  to  appoint  a  committee  of  three,  in  their  several 
conference  districts,  to  receive  and  count  the  votes,  and  immediately  apprise 
those  who  may  have  been  elected. 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  annual  conference  to  furnish  the  pre- 
siding elders  with  a  list  of  all  the  elders  eligible  for  election.  The  presiding 
elders  shall  furnish  each  circuit-preacher  in  charge,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  fur- 
nish each  class-leader  or  steward  throughout  the  circuit  with  a  copy  of  the  same. 

Sec.  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  each  classleader  or  steward  to  appoint  a  meet- 
ing of  the  members  of  each  class,  for  the  purpose  of  electing,  by  ballot  or  other- 
wise, one  or  more  delegates  to  represent  them  in  General  Conference. 

Sec.  5.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  each  class-leader  or  steward  to  sign,  enclose 
and  seal  each  bill  of  election,  hand  it  over  to  the  preacher  in  charge;  he  again  to 
the  presiding  elder,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  transmit  the  same  to  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  annual  conference. 

Sec.  6.  The  committee  appointed  to  receive  and  count  the  votes  shall  make  a 
list  of  all  the  persons  voted  for  and  the  number  of  votes  for  each.  Should  any 
two  or  more  of  the  candidates  have  an  equal  number  of  votes,  the  individuals 
thus  appointed  shall  determine  by  lot  who  or  which  of  them  are  elected.  They 
shall  also  forward  the  names  of  those  elected  to  the  conference  printing  establish- 
ment for  publication. 

ARTICLE   III. 

Sec.  I.  Each  annual  conference  shall  come  fully  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
General  Conference,  except  under  such  regulations  as  the  General  Conference 
may  deem  expedient  in  relation  to  local  matters,  so  as  not  to  prove  prejudicial  to 
the  interest  of  the  whole  society. 

Sec.  2.  The  business  of  each  annual  conference  shall  strictly  be  done  accord- 
ing to  Discipline. 

Sec.  3,  Any  annual  conteience  acting  in  violation  of  the  doings  of  General 
Conference,  shall,  by  impeachment,  be  tried  by  the  same. 


—9— 

6mC.  4.  No  annual  conference  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  to  form  or  admit 
any  new  conference  within  the  bounds  of  society,  without  the  consent  of  the 
General  Conference, 

Sec.  5.  All  officers,  whether  bishops,  presiding  elders,  etc.,  shall,  on  impeach- 
ment, be  dealt  with  according  to  Discipline,  as  other  members,  expelled  or  re- 
tained, as  the  case  may  require. 

ARTICLE   IV. 

Sec.  r.  If  at  any  time  after  the  passing  of  this  constitution  it  should  be  con- 
templated either  to  alter  or  amend  the  same,  it  shall  be  the  privilege  of  any 
member  in  society  to  publish  or  cause  to  be  published  such  contemplation  at  least 
three  months  before  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  General  Conference. 

Sec.  2.  No  General  Conference  shall  have  the  power  to  alter  or  amend  the 
foregoing  constitution,  except  it  be  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  that  body. 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Inasmuch  as  it  is  the  indefeasible  right  of  every  man  to  think  and  act  for  him 
self  in  matters  of  faith  and  morality,  this  right  not  only  being  granted  by  the 
charter  of  his  creation,  but  also  by  the  Discipline  adopted  for  the  better  govern- 
ment of  the  church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  ChrisI ;  be  it  resolved,  therefore — 

1st.  That  no  rule  be  adopted  by  General  Conference  so  as  to  infringe  upon 
the  rights  of  any,  as  it  relates  to  the  mode  and  manner  of  baptism,  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  or  the  washing  of  feet,  etc. 

2d.  Resolved,  No  rule  or  ordinance  shall  be  passed  in  General  Conference  so 
as  to  deprive  the  local  preachers  of  the  eligibility  of  election  as  delegates  to  the 
same.  Nor  yet  to  deprive  them  of  their  legal  vote  in  the  annual  conferences  to 
which  they  severally  belong. 

3d.  Resolved,  That  the  foregoing  resolutions  shall  neither  be  altered  or  ap- 
pealed without  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  whole  conference. 

Done  in  General  Conference  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  that  body,  this  nth 
day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven.     In  witness  whereof,  we  have  hereunto  set  our  names. 

Henry  Kumler,      ■»  ^.  ,  George  Hiskey. 

>  I^ishops.      ^  ^ 

Samuel  Hiestand,  j  John  Coons. 

Jacob  Erb.  William  Hanby. 

Jacob  Winter.  Jno.  Fetherhoff. 

Jacob  Rhinehart.  William  Stubbs. 

Jacob  J.  Glossbrenner.  Francis  Whitcom. 

Adam  Hetzler.  John  Lopp. 

David  Weimer.  .     Frederick  Kenoyer. 

John  Dorcas.  William  Davis. 


— lu— 

CONSTITUTION  OF  1841. 

v.'e,  the  members  of  the  Church  ok  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ, 
i>-  the  name  of  God,  do,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ni.iiistry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,  as  well  as  to  produce  and  secure 
a  uniform  mode  af  action,  in  faith  and  practice,  also  to  define  the  powers  and  the 
business  of  quarterly,  annual  and  general  conferences,  as  recognized  by  this 
Cnurch,  ordain  the  following  articles  of  Constitution: 

ARTICLE   I. 

isec.  I.  All  ecclesiastical  power  herein  granted,  to  make  or  repeal  any  rule  of 
discipline,  is  vested  in  a  general  conference,  which  shall  consist  of  elders,  elected 
by  the  members  in  every  conference  district  throughout  the  society;  provided, 
however,  such  elders  shall  have  stood  in  that  capacity  three  years,  in  the  confer- 
ence  district  to  which  they  belong. 

Sec.  2.  General  Conference  is  to  be  held  every  four  years;  the  bishops  to  be 
considered  members  and  presiding  officers. 

Sec.  3.  Each  annual  conference  shall  place  before  the  society  the  names  of  all 
the  elders  eligible  to  membership  in  the  General  Conference. 

article  II. 

Sec.  I.  The  General  Conference  shall  define  the  boundaries  of  the  annual  con- 
ferences. 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Conference  shall,  at*  every  session,  elect  bishops  from 
among  the  elders  throughout  the  Church,  who  have  stood  six  years  in  that  ca- 
pacity. 

Sec.  3.  The  business  of  each  annual  conference  shall  be  done  strictly  accord- 
ing to  Discipline;  and  any  annual  conference  acting  contrary  thereunto,  shall,  by 
impeachment,  be  tried  by  the  General  Conference. 

Sec.  4.  No  rule  or  ordinance  shall  at  any  time  be  passed,  to  change  or  do  away 
the  Confession  of  Faith  as  it  now  stands,  nor  to  destroy  the  itinerant  plan. 

Sec.  5,  There  shall  no  rule  be  adopted  that  will  infringe  upon  the  rights  of 
any  as  it  relates  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  or 
the  washing  of  feet. 

Sec.  6.  There  shall  be  no  rule  made  that  will  deprive  local  preachers  of  their 
votes  in  the  annual  conferences  to  which  they  severally  beloncr. 

Sec.  7.  There  shall  be  no  connection  with  secret  combinations,  nor  shall  in- 
voluntary seivitude  be  tolerated  in  any  way. 

Sec.  8.     The  right  of  appeal  shall  be  inviolate. 

article    III. 

The  right,  title,  interest,  and  claim  of  all  property,  whether  consisting  in  lots 
of  ground,  meeting-houses,  legacies,  bequests  or  donations  of  any  kind,  obtained 


—11— . 

by  purchase  or  otherwise,  by  any  person  or  persons,  for  the  use,  benefit,  and  be- 
hoof of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  is  hereby  fully  recognized 
and  held  to  be  the  property  of  the  Church  aforesaid. 

ARTICLE    IV. 

There  shall  be  no  alteration  of  the  foregoing  constitution,  unless  by  request  of 
two  thirds  of  the  whole  society. 


Now,  if  as  some  are  wont  to  say  that  the  changes  were  but  slight,  then 
why  not  go  back  and  adopt  the  constitution  of  1837?  But  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly remembered  that  neither  of  these  constitutions  was  ever  formally 
voted  upon  by  the  members  of  the  church.  The  one  adopted  in  1837  was 
before  the  church  in  a  general  way  for  four  years,  but  there  is  no  record 
that  it  was  ever  voted  upon.  The  one  adopted  in  1841  was  simply  put  into 
the  discipline,  and  the  members  were  never  so  much  as  allowed  to  pass  an 
opinion  upon  it.  But  look  at  the  difference  in  the  constitutions.  The  one 
adopted  in  1837  has  not  a  word  in  it  on  secret  combinations  or  slavery. 
Then  notice  the  difference  in  the  provisions  made  for  changing  the  consti- 
tution. Now,  if  in  four  years  the  fathers  found  it  necessary  to  make  such 
radical  changes  in  their  own  constitution,  is  it  not  strange  that  they  would 
venture  to  put  into  the  constitution  of  1841  a  provision  that  would  make  it 
impractible  if  not  impossible  ever  to  change  it  ?  Every  man  must  know 
that  to  follow  the  literal  reading  of  our  present  constitution,  and  adopt  no 
method  except  what  is  therein  named,  would  render  it  utterly  impossible  ever 
to  change  it.  Some  who  oppose  the  work  of  the,  commission  insist  that  the 
General  Conference  had  no  right  to  change,  or  propose  a  change  in  the 
constitution  until  two  thirds  of  the  whole  society  requested  it.  Is  this 
practicable  ?  Could  it  ever  be  reached  ?  If  so,  how  ?  Who  is  to  start  this 
request  ?  Where  will  it  start  ?  Upon  these  details  the  constitution  says 
not  one  word.  Again,  while  we  may  not  be  a  whit  behind  the  best  church 
in  the  land,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  one  third  of  our  members  are  quite  indif- 
ferent concerning  the  general  interests  of  the  church.  They  pray  but  little 
and  pay  less.  Now  if  the  active  working  members  of  the  church  must 
wait  until  these  dead  ones  move,  or  ask  the  General  Conference  to  move, 
we  will  never  move  upward  or  onward.  I  ask  a  careful  reading  and  com- 
parison of  these  constitutions,  just  to  see  how  much  the  fathers  changed  in 
four  years. 

Wise  and  good  as  the  fathers  were,  they  certainly  did  not  take  into  the 
account  the  impracticability  of  reaching  a  change  in  the  way  they  proposed, 


— 1-2— 

When  we  look  at  the  changes  they  made  in  1841  in  their  own  constitution, 
which  was  only  four  years  old,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  why  it  was  thai 
they  should  thrust  upon  the  members  a  constitution  which  it  would  be  next 
to  impossible  to  change. 

Concerning  their  right  to  do  what  they  did,  I  have  this  to  say.  The 
validity,  if  acquired  at  all,  was  accepted  on  priuieniial  ground.  This  would 
justly  require  the  covering  of  all  the  ground  in  the  case.  If  impracticable 
things  should  be  insisted  upon,  the  pritdential  consideration  would  demand 
that  the  work  of  the  General  Conference  of  1841  be  accredited  the  char- 
acter of  valid  legislation,  and  nothing  more.  By  common  consent  we 
have  accepted  the  constitution  of  1841  as  valid  legislation.  But  that  does 
not  make  the  act  of  that  General  Conference  legal. 

It  will  be  proper  in  this  connection  to  giye  some  facts  concerning  the 
manner  of  the  adoption  of  our  constitution  in  1841.  In  1837  the  General 
Conference  did  adopt  a  constitution.  But  they  recognized  the  fact  that 
they  had  no  authority  to  do  so,  and  issued  the  following 

CIRCULAR. 

To  the  Members  of  the   Church  of  the   United  Brethren  in   Christ  throughout  these 
United  States: 

Dear  brethren,  l)y  whose  authority  we,  as  a  General  Conference,  have  been 
authorized  to  legislate  on  matters  pertaining  to  the  government  of  our  church, 
and  having  long  since  been  convinced  of  the  great  necessity  of  a  constitution  for 
the  better  regulation  thereof,  have,  by  unanimous  consent,  framed  and  established 
the  foregoing.  We  are  well  aware  that  we  have  transcended  the  bounds  given 
us  by  our  Discipline,  which  will  be  found  in  the  ctjnstiiution.  Article  IV.,  Sec- 
tion 2,  declaring  that  the  said  constitution  can  neither  be  altered  or  amended 
without  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of  a  General  Conference.  If  there  had  been  a 
general  notice  given  to  the  Church  previous  to  the  election  of  delegates  that  there 
would  be  a  memorial  offered  to  General  Conference,  praying  them  to  adopt  a 
constitution,  and  to  ratify  it  agreeably  to  Article  IV.,  Section  2,  then  the  General 
Conference  would  have  had  full  power  to  have  done  so.  The  object  of  this  cir- 
cular is  (feeling  that  the  government  of  our  church  is  not  as  firm  as  it  ought  to 
be)  to  give  notice  to  our  church  throughout  the  Union  that  we  intend  to  present 
a  memorial  to  the  next  General  Conference,  praying  them  to  ratify  the  con 
STITUTION  NOW  ADoi'TED,  according  to  Article  IV.,  Section  2,  in  testimony  oi 
our  ardent  desire  for  the  welfare  of  ou;  church,  and  the  general  spread  of  the 
gospel. 

Written  by  order  of  General  Conference.  Germantown,  Ohij,  May  12th,  1837. 
Signed  in  behalf  of  the  same,  bv 

William  R.  Rhinehart,  Sec'y. 


—13— 

Now  observe  the  words  in  this  circular.  They  did  not  ask  the  people  to 
memorialize  the  next  General  Conference  to  formulate  and  adopt  a  consti- 
tution. What  then  did  they  ask  for  ?  They  say  in  their  own  circular  that 
■'The  object  of  this  circular  is  to  give  notice  to  our  church  throughout  th? 
Union  that  we  intend  to  present  a  memorial  to  the  next  General  Confer 
ence(i84i)  praying  them  to  ratify  the  constitution  now  adopted.' 
Did  the  General  Conference  of  1841  ratify  that  constitution?  It  did  not. 
By  whose  authority  then  did  it  adopt  our  present  constitution?  The 
General  Conference  of  1841  appointed  a  committee  on  constitution;  that 
committee  reported  a  constitution  which  was  adopted,  item  by  item.  Scarce 
a  word  appears  upon  the  record  concerning  the  constitution  of  1837.  It 
was  virtually  ignored. 

"The  General  Conference  of  1841  had  no  more  power  than  the  General 
Conference  of  1837.  If  the  conference  of  1841  had  any  'instructions' 
they  were  confined  solely  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1837.  To 
do  more  than  this  was  an  assumption  of  authority  unwarranted  by  the  'in- 
structions.' It  did  assume  to  frame  and  adopt  another  constitution  radi- 
cally different  from  the  constitution  of  1837." 

I  have  always  sought  to  obey  the  constitution  as  it  is.  But  to  say  that  it 
was  adopted  according  to  the  usual  way  of  adopting  an  organic  law,  I  can 
not;  for  it  was  not  so  done.  In  what  way  was  the  General  Conference  of 
1841  instructed  by  the  church  to  act  upon  the  question  of  a  constitution? 
The  record  does  not  say.  So  far  as  ihe  record  goes  we  have  nothing  to 
guide  us  but  the  circular  sent  out  by  the  conference  of  1837.  Did  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1841  act  under  the  instructions  contained  in  that  circu- 
lar? If  it  did  not,  then  upon  what  instructions  did  it  act?  Did  the  mem- 
bers in  some  other  way  memorialize  the  General  Conference  of  1841  to  take 
action  on  the  question  of  a  constitution  .?  There  is  nothing  upon  record  to 
show  this.  If  the  conference  of  1841  acted  under  the  instructions  con- 
tained in  that  circular,  then  it  transcended  its  bounds,  for  the  circular  did 
not  propose  the  adoption  of  a  constitution,  but  the  ratification  of  the  con- 
stitution now  adopted.  What  does  the  word  ratify  mean?  Webster  de 
fines  it  thus:  "To  approve  and  sanction;  to  make  valid;  to  confirm;  t 
establish;  to  settle,  especially  to  give  sanction  to,  as  something  done  by 
an  agent  or  servant,  as  to  ratify  an  agreement  or  treaty."  Did  the  Gen 
eral  Conference  of  1841  do  this  ?  It  did  not;  unless  the  word  ratify  means 
something  very  different  from  what  Webster  defines  it  to  mean. 


—14— 

Another  point  has  been  raised  which  is  not  only  weak  but  foolish.  It  is 
this:  Because  the  majority  of  our  members  today  have  joined  the  church 
under  our  present  constitution,  therefore  they  should  never  ask  for  any 
change.  By  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  then,  all  persons  who  have  be- 
come citizens  of  a  state,  or  of  the  United  States,  should  never  ask  or  vote 
for  any  change  in  the  constitution  of  either. 

It  is  easy  for  men    to    talk  and  say  how  this  or  that  ought  to  be,  but 
they  are  not  the  men  to  tell  us  how  to  meet  and  overcome   difficulties. 
There  were  two  difficulties  before  the  last  General  Conference,     (i.)  On 
account  of  our  rigid  law  against  secret  societies,  more  than  half  of  the 
ministers  and  members  of  the  church  openly  violated  or  silently  ignored 
the  law.     (2.)  A  modification  of  the  law  so  as  to  discriminate  between  the 
orders  could  not  be  made  without  involving  a  departure  from  what  is  held 
to  be  constitutional  law.     These  are  facts  with  which  the  General  Confer- 
ence had  to  grapple.     No  matter  what  produced  this  state  of  things  in  the 
church,  the  facts  were  before  that  body.     In  1877  two  thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers were  "radicals."  In  1881  the  ''radicals"  and  'liberals"  were  about  equal- 
ly divided.     In  1885  nearly  two  thirds  were  "liberals."     Now  let  those  who 
have  so  much  to  say  about  the  last  General  Conference,  tell  us  just  what 
was  the  best  thing  to  do  in  the  face  of  the  facts  herein  stated.     Would  it 
have  been  wise  to  attempt  to  carry  forward  a  law  when  more  than  a  ma- 
jority did  not  and  would  not  enforce  it  ?    Could  the  General  Conference 
have  modified  the  law  so  as  to  discriminate  between  the  orders  without 
violating  the  constitution,  which  says    "there  shall  be  no  connection  with 
secret  combinations  ?"    What  then  was  the  wisest  thing  to  do  ?     The  dele- 
gates in  the  General  Conference  of  1841  took  the  matter  into  their  own  hands 
and  made  a  constitution  to  suit  themselves,  and  never  asked  the  people  to 
ratify  it.     The  late  General  Conference  did  vastly  better,  for  they  deter- 
mined that  the  whole  matter  should  go  to  the  members  for  them  to  settle 
for  themselves.     Is  this  unfair?     Is  it  unreasonable  ?     Is  it  unjust.?     A/ter 
forty-five  years  of  membership  in  the  United  Brethren  Church,  I  have  the 
utmost  confidence  in  the  good  sense  and  honesty  of  the  ministers  and 
members  of  the  church.     They  will  decide  this  question  as  it  ought  to  be 
decided.     We  wiP  never  have  rest  until  the  members  settle  this  question 
for  themselves. 


ACTS  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  FROM  1841  TO  1885. 


From  the  time  the  constitution  was  adopted  until  this  present  time,  the 
church  has  been  more  or  less  restless.  At  the  General  Conference  in  1849, 
only  eight  years  after  its  adoption,  J.  Markwood  moved  that  it  be  stricken 
from  the  Discipline,  because  it  was  not  legal.  This  motion  was  enter- 
tained, debated,  and  voted  upon.  I  mention  this  to  show  that  at  that  early 
day  there  was  a  feeling  of  restlessness  in  the  church.  It  is  not  true  that  all 
this  unrest  is  of  recent  origin. 

At  the  General  Conference  of  1857,  when  it  was  agreed  to  read  the  Dis- 
cipline in  course  (as  was  the  custoin  in  that  day),  it  was  moved  that  the 
reading  of  the  confession  of  faith  and  constitution  be  omitted.  This  mo- 
tion was  lost,  because  it  was  urged  by  H.  Kumler  and  others  that  some 
amendments  in  both  the  constitution  and  confession  of  faith  were  desired. 

On  motion.  Section  i  of  the  constitution  was  referred  to  the  committee 
on  revision.  The  subject  was  lay-delegation.  The  committee  reported 
the  following:  "That  at  the  present  it  would  not  be  advisable  to  submit 
the  constitution  to  the  laity,  for  the  vote  relative  thereto,  with  a  view  to  the 
modification  of  it,  or  any  part  of  it."  On  motion,  the  report  was  re-com- 
mitted with  instruction  to  a  favorable  report,  or  else  a  reason  for  the  reverse. 
The  committee,  after  full  consideration,  again  reported  and  gave  extended 
reasons  for  not  reporting  favorably.  The  report  closed  as  follows:  "We 
have  too  much  respect  for  the  members  of  the  Church  to  take  the  initiative 
steps  in  a  movement  which  so  directly  affects  their  rights."  On  motion  of 
Bishop  Edwards,  this  part  of  the  report  was'  stricken  out.  At  this  same 
General  Conference  there  was  a  change  made  in  the  last  paragraph  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  The  words,  "these  respects,"  were  substituted  for 
the  words,  "this  respect."  I  was  a  member  of  that  General  Conference, 
and  particularly  interested  in  the  discussions.  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1885  was  not  the  first  conference  in  which  the 
constitution  and  confession  of  faith  were  referred  to  committees  on  re- 
vision.    It  dates  back  of  that  almost  thirty  years. 

At  the  General  Conference  of  1873  a  proposition  to  amend  the  constitu- 
tion was  before  the  conference  for  a  number  of  days,  so  that  the  delegates 
had  ample  time  to  consider  the  whole  question.  A  few  of  the  delegates 
claimed  that  they  had  no  right  to  vote  for  an  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion, because  only  about  one  sixty-seventh  of  the  members  had  requested 

15 


—16— 

5uch  a  change.     But  that  matter  was  wholly  ignored.     The  question  was 
on  lay  delegation.     The  constitution  says  : 

Section  i.  All  ecclesiastical  power  herein  granted,  to  make  or  repeal  any 
rule  of  discipline,  is  vested  in  a  general  conference,  which  shall  consist  of  elders, 
elected  by  the  members  in  every  conference  district  throughout  the  society  ;  pro- 
vided, however,  such  elders  shall  have  stood  in  that  capacity  three  years,  in  the 
conference  district  to  which  they  belong. 

The  amendment  proposed  was  as  follows  : 

Section  i.  All  ecclesiastical  power  herein  granted  to  enact  or  repeal  any  law 
or  rule  of  Discipline  is  vested  in  a  general  conference,  which  shall  consist  of 
elders  and  laymen,  elected  in  every  annual  conference  district  throughout  the 
Church. 

After  the  question  had  been  fully  discussed,  the  vote  was  taken,  and  the 
following  was  the  result : 

ygas. — Glossbrenner,  Edwards,  Weaver,  Dickson,  Ambrose,  AUaman,  Best, 
Breden,  Bowman,  Beauchamp,  Bishop,  Bunce,  Bulger,  Brazee,  Baldwin,  Carter, 
Connor,  Colestock,  Castle,  Cowgill,  Drury,  Doyle,  Davis,  Dillon,  Evans,  T., 
Evans,  J.  R.,  Favour,  Gelbach,  Greene,  Garst,  Gardner,  Gillespie,  Griffith,  Hoy, 
Hoffman,  Hill,  Hager,  Healey,  Harper,  Hallowell,  Hershey,  Hamilton,  Hott, 
Howe,  Ham,  Jacobs,  Light,  Luce,  Lemasters,  Miller,  W.,  Miller,  D.  R.,  Millar, 
McGrew,  Mills,  McKee,  Martin,  Mittendorf,  Nye,  Nickey,  Osmun,  Poulton, 
Plowman,  Peters,  Ross,  Rose,  Rigor,  Speck,  Shark,  D.  B.,  Sherk,  A.  B.,  Shuck, 
Schwimley,  Smith,  W.  C,  Smith  J.  C,  Scammahorn,  Statton,  I.  K.,  Sickafoose, 
Slaughter,  Simpson,  Thrasher,  Tibbetts,  Tritch,  Vandever,  Vardaman,  Wagoner, 
Whitney,  Walker,  Warner,  Williams,  Wilkison,  Wright,  Watrous. 

Nays. — Alwood,  Alderman,  Bay,  Bacon,  Bowman,  Barnaby,  Fritz,  Hurless, 
Kretsinger,  Scholler,  Smith,  O.  F.,  Statton,  G.  W. 

Now  look  at  the  names  of  those  who  voted  for  the  amendment :  re- 
membering two  things,  (i.)  Only  about  one  sixty-seventh  of  the  members 
had  requested  such  a  change.  (2,)  Many  of  those  very  same  persons  now 
say,  that  the  General  Conference  has  no  right  to  make  or  propose  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  until  requested  by  two  thirds  of  the  whole 
society  to  do  so.  One  of  two  things  must  be  true — they  were  right  then 
and  wrong  now,  or  they  were  wrong  then  and  right  now.     Which  is  it? 

After  the  vote  was  taken,  and  the  amendment  declared  adopted,  the 
whole  matter  respecting  the  holding  of  elections,  etc.,  was  referred  to  the 
board  of  bishops.  They  were  to  arrange  the  time  and  manner  of  voting, 
and  tu  decide  what  the  constitution  meant  by  two  thirds  of  the  whole  so- 
ciety, thus  delegating  to  the  board  of  bishops  its  power  in  carrying  out  its 
wishes.     No  man  that  voted  for  the  amendment  in  1873  has  any  just  right 


to  find  fault  with  the  action  of  the  General  Conferenct;  of  1885,  unless  he 
is  willing  to  say  in  just  so  many  words  that  he  was  wrong  then.  But  up  to 
this  time  not  one  of  them,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  ever  said  he  was  wrong 
then.  Yet  they  oppose  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  and  de- 
nounce it  as  illegal,  and  in  every  way  out  of  order.  What  rights  did  the 
General  Conference  of  1873  have  that  the  General  Conference  of  1885  did 
not  have?  Men  who  are  so  free  in  denouncing  the  actions  of  the  latter, 
and  in  talking  and  writing  about  the  commission  nonsense,  should  not  for- 
get where  their  names  stand  in  the  vote  of  1873.  Was  there  any  nonsense 
about  that  ? 

Another  fact  should  be  carefully  noted,  which  is  this :  that  according  to 
the  work  actually  done,  and  the  plan  proposed  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1873,  if  the  amendment  which  they  adopted  had  been  submitted  to  the 
members  as  they  intended  that  it  should  be,  and  the  requisite  majority 
had  voted  for  it,  then  laymen  would  have  been  elected  and  been 
members  of  the  next  General  Conference.  The  vote  01  the  members  was 
to  be  final.  Not  a  word  is  said  about  its  coming  bacK  lO  the  next  General 
Conference  for  final  ratification.  1  now  say,  notwithstanding  all  that  has 
been  said  to  the  contrary,  that  the  General  Conference  of  1873  did  give  to 
the  board  of  bishops  as  much  authority  as  the  General  Conference  of  1885 
gave  to  the  commission.  The  General  Conference  of  1841  did  formulate 
and  adopt  the  constitution,  and  never  so  much  as  asked  the  members  to 
ratify  it.  Mark  that.  The  General  Conference  uf  1873  wholly  ignored  tne 
two  thirds  idea,  and  voted  to  amend  the  constitution.     Mark  that. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  plan  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference  is  un- 
constitutional, we  reply,  that  the  constitution  gives  no  plan  at  all,  by  which 
an  amendment  may  be  reached.  It  simply  allows  it,  but  gives  no  outline 
as  to  the  manner  by  which  it  is  to  be  done. 

The  General  Conference  of  1885  was  composed  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  members ;  seventy-eight  of  these  voted  for  the  commission,  and 
forty-two  against  it.  Of  the  forty-two  who  voted  against  the  commission, 
about  twenty-two  voted  for  Luttrell's  substitute ;  so  that  of  the  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  delegates,  about  one  hundred  voted  in  favor  of  amending 
and  improving  the  constitution  and  confession  of  faith,  and  then  submit- 
ting the  whole  matter  to  the  members  for  adoption  or  rejection.  Surely 
the  opinion  of  so  large  a  number  of  intelligent  men  can  not  be  far  wrong. 
Now,  if  the  constitution  pointed  out  in  exact  terms  just  how  an  amendment 
is  to  be  reached,  and  the  General  Conference  had  gone  contrary  to  such 


—18— 

direction,  then  there  would  be  just  grounds  for  complaint;  but  no  such 
directions  are  given. 

The  constitution  does  not  say  who  is  to  be  requested,  nor  how  it  is  to  be 
done.  Let  any  man  confine  himself  to  the  exact  language  of  the  constitu- 
tion and  there  is  no  way  to  reach  an  amendment.  The  constitution  recog- 
nizes the  right  to  change,  but  gives  no  plan  by  which  it  may  be  done.  Can 
it  be  that  the  General  Conference  of  1841  intended  simply  to  dally  with  the 
Church  ?  Surely  not.  Does  any  one  say  that  it  must  be  done  by  petition- 
ing the  General  Conference  ?  But  the  constitution  does  not  say  so.  Does 
any  one  say  that  the  inference  is  that  it  must  be  done  by  petition  ?  But 
inferences  can  not  be  allowed  in  this  case.  Those  who  pronounce  against 
the  commission  as  unconstitutional  must  confine  themselves  to  the  exact 
words  of  the  constitution. 

In  the  Telescope  of  April  7th,  1886,  Bishop  "Wright,  who  is  opposed  to 
the  Commission,  says: 

It  may  be  asked,  What  is  meant  by  "request  of  two  thirds  of  the  whole  so- 
ciety?"    (Discipline,  Article  IV.)     There  are  three  views  on  the  subject : 

1.  The  first  view  is  that  it  means  the  actual  request  in  some  way  of  two  thirds 
of  all  the  members  literally,  according  to  our  statistics. 

2.  The  second  view  is  that  it  means  two  thirds  of  all  the  members  voting 
(however  small  that  vote)  on  the  submitted  amendment. 

3.  The  third  view  is  that  a  two  thirds  majority  of  a  large  vote — say,  one  half 
or  two  thirds  of  all  enrolled — would  indicate  sufficiently  the  will  of  two  thirds 
of  ou»"  people  concerning  any  proposed  change,  and  that  if  our  people  really  de- 
sired such  proposed  change  there  would  be  a  large  vote. 

Probably  somewhere  in  this  medium  view  lies  the  most  reasonable  solution  of 
this  disputed  question. '  It  seems  unreasonable  that  changes  in  the  constitution 
should  be  decided  by  the  request  of  less  than  one  tenth  of  the  whole  Church,  or 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  members,  hardly  to  be  found  by  any  process,  should  pre- 
vent all  change. 

After  giving  the  three  views,  he  then  says,  "Probably  somewhere  in 
this  medium  view  lies  the  most  reasonable  solution  of  this  disputed  ques- 
ion."  Here  the  Bishop,  just  like  the  rest  of  us,  finds  himself  at  sea.  If 
somebody  can  tell  us  just  where  that  " sofuewhere^'  is,  it  would  be  an  ac- 
commodation to  us  all.  I  quote  this  from  Bishop  Wright  not  to  criticise, 
nor  find  fault,  but  to  show  that  the  very  best  and  ablest  men  on  the  other 
side  of  this  question,  are  not  able  to  give  us  anything  definite.  I  have 
claimed  from  the  first  that  our  constitution  is  obscure  with  respect  to  tne 
provisions  for  amendments,  and  the  bishop's  statements  fully  confirm  my 
views. 


THE  COMMISSION. 


There  has  been  for  a  number  of  years  a  growing  sentiment  in  the  Church 
in  favor  of  amending  our  constitution  and  confession  of  faith.  But  the 
question  was  to  adopt  a  method  by  which  to  reach  this  end.  As  has  b^en 
insisted  upon,  our  constitution  does  not  provide  any  method  in  detail.  It 
simply  allows  it  to  be  done,  but  furnishes  no  outline  with  respect  to  doing  it. 
Those  who  find  so  much  fault  with  the  plan  adopted  by  the  last  Geneial 
Conference, would  do  the  Church  a  great  favor  if  they  would  tell  us  just  how 
an  amendment  is  to  be  reached,  and  at  ihe  same  time  confine  themselves 
to  the  exact  words  of  the  constitution.  All  the  constitution  says  on  the 
matter  is  "There  shall  be  no  alteration  in  the  foregoing  constitution,  un- 
less by  request  of  two  thirds  of  the  whole  society."  Who  is  to  formulate 
changes  in  the  constitution?  With  whom  is  this  request  to  originate? 
When  some  body  formulates  changes,  how  are  they  to  be  gotten  before 
the  whole  society?  On  all  such  questions  the  constitution  is  silent.  If  we 
confine  ourselves  to  the  exact  words  of  the  constitution  there  is  no  way 
under  the  heavens  of  ever  reaching  an  amendment.  When  we  go  outside 
of  the  provisions  of  the  constitution,  which  we  must  do  in  order  to  reach 
an  amendment,  what  then  ?  Is  not  the  General  Conference  as  capable 
of  devising  ways  and  means  as  any  other  body  ? 

The  General  Conference  might  have  adopted  any  one  of  a  dozen  methods 
by  which  to  reach  an  amendment.  But  no  matter  what  plan  had  been 
adopted,  some  one  would  have  thought  of  a  better  way.  Suppose  that 
two  thirds  of  the  whole  society  had  sent  a  request  to  strike  out  that  clause 
on  secret  combina'.ioris,  would  all  the  members  of  the  General  Conference 
have  been  agreed  to  it  ? 

In  view  of  the  obscurity  of  our  constitution  respecting  matters  of  detail, 
the  General  Conference  constituted  the  Commission,  and  gave  to  it  certain 
instructions  how  to  proceed.  Nearly  two  thirds  of  the  delegates  voted  in 
favor  of  the  Commission.  According  to  the  instruction  of  the  General 
Conference  the  Commission  met  in  Dayton,  Ohio,  November  17th,  1885. 
This  was  six  months  after  the  General  Conference,  During  this  time  the 
inembers  of  the  Commission  had  been  exchanging  views,  not  only  with 
each  other,  but  with  many  not  members  of  the  Commission.  When  the 
Commission  met,  they  spent  seven  days  in  untiring  work  before  they  com- 
pleted it.  Of  one  thing  I  am  fully  convinced,  that  unless  the  General  Con- 
ference could  have  found  far  more  competent  men  than  those  composing 

19 


—20— 

the  Commission,  the  work  could  not  have  been  done  during  the  session  of 
the  General  Conference. 

For  convenience  and  for  comparison,  we  place  together  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Constitution  as  they  are  in  the  Discipline,  and  as  recom- 
mended by  the  Commission  : 

Confession  of  Faith  as  it  Is. 

In  the  name  of  God  we  declare  and  confess  before  all  men,  that  we  believe  in 
the  only  true  God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  these  three  are 
one :  the  Father  in  the  Son,  the  Son  in  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  equal  in 
essence  or  being  with  both ;  that  this  triune  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  visible  as  well  as  invisible,  and  furthermore  sus- 
tains, governs,  protects,  and  supports  the  same. 

We  believe  in  Jesus  Christ;  that  he  is  very  God  and  man  ;  that  he  became  in- 
carnate by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  born  of 
her;  that  he  is  the  Savior  and  Mediator  of  the  whole  human  race,  if  they  with 
full  faith  in  him  accept  the  grace  proffered  in  Jesus;  that  this  Jesus  suffered  and 
died  on  the  cross  for  us,  was  buried,  arose  again  on  the  third  day,  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  to  intercede  for  us ;  and  that  he 
shall  come  again  at  the  last  day,  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 

We  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  he  is  equal  in  being  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  that  he  comforts  the  faithful,  and  guides  them  into  all  truth. 

We  believe  in  a  holy  Chistian  Church,  the  communion  of  saints,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  and  life  everlasting. 

We  believe  that  the  Holy  Bible,  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  the  word  of  God; 
that  it  contains  the  only  true  way  to  our  salvation  ;  that  every  true  Christian  is 
bound  to  acknowledge  and  receive  it  with  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as 
the  only  rule  and  guide;  and  that  without  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  true  repentance, 
forgiveness  of  sins,  and  following  after  Christ,  no  one  can  be  a  true  Christian. 

We  also  believe  that  what  is  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  wit :  the  fall 
in  Adam  and  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ,  shall  be  preached  throughout  the 
world. 

We  believe  that  the  ordinances,  viz. :  baptism  and  the  remembrance  of  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  are  to  be  in  use,  and  practiced  by  all 
Christian  societies;  and  that  it  is  incumbent  on  all  the  children  of  God  particu- 
larly to  practice  them;  but  the  manner  in  which  ought  always  to  be  left  to  the 
judgment  and  understanding  of  every  individual.  Also  the  example  of  washing 
feet  is  left  to  the  judgment  of  every  one,  to  practice  or  not ;  but  it  is  not  becom- 
ing of  :my  one  of  our  preachers  or  members  to  traduce  any  of  their  brethren 
whose  judgment  and  understanding  in  these  respects  is  different  from  their  own, 
either  in  public  or  private.  Whosoever  shall  make  himself  guilty  in  this  respect, 
shall  be  considered  a  traducer  of  his  brethren,  and  shall  be  answerable  for  the 
same. 


—21— 

Confession  of  Faith  as  Recomviended  by  the  Commission. 

In  the  name  of  God,  wf  d'^clare  and  confess  before  all  men  the  following 
articles  of  our  belief: 

ARTICLE   I. 

OF   GOD   AND    THE   HOLY  TRINITY. 
We  believe  in  the  only  true  God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
that  these  three  are  one — the  Father  in  the  Son,  the  Son  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  equal  in  essence  or  being  with  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

ARTICLE  II. 

OF    CREATION    AND    PROVIDENCE, 

We. believe  this  triune  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all  that  in 
them  is,  visible  and  invisible;  that  he  sustains,  protects,  and  governs  these  with 
gracious  regard  for  the  welfare  of  man,  to  the  glory  of  his  name. 

ARTICLE  III. 

OF    JESUS    CHRIST. 

We  believe  in  Jesus  Christ ;  that  he  is  very  God  and  man  ;  that  he  became  in- 
carnate by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  that 
he  is  the  Savior  and  Mediator  of  the  whole  human  race,  if  they  with  full  faith 
accept  the  grace  proffered  in  Jesus;  that  this  Jesus  suffered  and  died  on  the  cross 
for  us,  was  buried,  arose  again  on  the  third  day,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth 
on  the  right  hand  of  God,  to  intercede  for  us  ;  and  that  he  will  come  again  at  the 
last  day  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

OF    THE    HOLY   GHOST. 

We  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  he  is  equal  in  being  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son;  that  he  convinces  the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment; 
that  he  comforts  the  faithful  and  guides  them  into  all  truth. 

ARTICLE  V. 

OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

We  believe  that  the  Holy  Bible,  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  the  word  of  God; 
that  it  reveals  the  only  true  way  to  our  salvation;  that  every  true  Christian  is 
bound  to  acknowledge  and  receive  it  by  the  help  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  only 
rule  and  guide  in  faith  and  practice. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

OF   THE    CHURCH. 
We  believe  in  a  holy  Christian  Church,  composed  of  true  believers,  in  which 
the  word  of  God  is  preached  by  men  divinely  called,  and  the  ordinances  are  duly 
administered  ;  that  this  divine  institution  is  for  the  maintenance  of  worship,  for 
the  edification  of  believers,  and  the  conversion  of  the  world  to  Christ. 


—22— 

ARTICLE  VII. 

OF   THE   SACRAMENTS. 

We  believe  the  sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  are  to  be  in  use  in 
the  Church,  and  should  be  practiced  by  all  Christians;  but  the  mode  of  baptism 
and  the  manner  of  observing  the  Lord's  supper  are  always  to  be  left  to  the  judg- 
ment and  understanding  of  each  individual.  Also,  the  baptism  of  children  shall 
be  left  to  the  judgment  of  believing  parents. 

The  example  of  washing  of  feet  is  to  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  each  one,  to 
practice  or  not. 

ARTICLE  VIII. 

OK    DEPRAVITY. 

We  believe  man  is  fallen  from  original  righteousness,  and  apart  from  the  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  not  only  entirely  destitute  of  holiness,  but  is  inclined 
to  evil,  and  only  evil,  and  that  continually:  and  that  except  a  man  be  born  again 
he  can  not  see  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

ARTICLE  IX. 

OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

We  believe  that  penitent  sinners  are  justified  before  God,  only  by  faith  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  by  works;  yet  thit  good  works  in  Christ  are  accepta- 
ble to  God,  and  spring  out  of  a  true  and  living  f  lith. 

ARTICLE  X. 

OF    REGENERATION    AND    ADOPTION. 

We  believe  that  regeneration  is  the  renewal  of  the  heart  of  man  after  the 
image  of  God,  through  the  word,  by  the  act  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  the  be- 
liever receives  the  spirit  of  adoption  and  is  enabled  to  serve  God  with  the  will 
and  the  affections. 

ARTICLE  XL 

OF    SANCTIFICATION. 

We  believe  sanctification  is  the  work  of  God's  grace,  thrcugh  the  word  and  the 
Spirit,  by  which  those  who  have  been  born  again  are  separated  in  their  acts, 
words,  and  thoughts  from  sin,  and  are  enabled  to  live  unto  God,  and  to  follow 
holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord. 

ARTICLE  XII. 

OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

We  believe  the  Chris.ian  Sabbath  is  divinely  appointed ;  that  it  is  commemora- 
tive  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  from  the  grave,  and  is  an  emblem  of  our  eternal 
rest;  that  ii  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  civil  community,  and  to  the  per- 
manence and  growth  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  that  it  should  be  reverently 
observed  as  a  day  of  holy  rest  and  of  social  and  public  worship. 


—23— 

ARTICLE  XIII. 

OF   THE    FUTURE   STATE. 

We  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead;  the  future  general  judgment ;  and 
an  eternal  state  of  rewards  in  which  the  righteous  dwell  in  endless  life,  and  the 
wicked  in  endless  punishment. 


Constitution  as  it  Is. 

We,  the  memoers  or  fAe  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  in 
the  name  of  God,  do  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try; for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,  as  well  as  to  produce  and  secure  a 
uniform  mode  of  action,  in  faith  ana  practice,  also  to  define  the  powers  and  the 
business  of  quarterly,  annual,  and  general  conferences,  as  recognized  by  this 
Church,  ordain  the  following  articles  of  Constitution  : 

ARTICLE  I. 

Sec.  I.  All  ecclesiastical  power  herein  granted,  to  make  or  repeal  any  rule  of 
discipline,  is  vested  in  a  general  conference,  which  shall  consist  of  elders,  elected 
by  the  members  in  every  conference  district  throughout  the  society ;  provided, 
however,  such  elders  shall  have  stood  in  that  capacity  three  years,  in  the  confer- 
ence district  to  which  they  belong. 

Sec.  2.  General  "Conference  is  to  be  held  every  four  years;  the  bishops  to  be 
considered  members  and  presiding  officers. 

Sec.  3.  Each  annual  conference  shall  place  before  the  society  the  names  of  all 
the  elders  eligible  to  membership  in  the  General  Conference. 

ARTICLE  II. 

Sec.  I.  The  General  Conference  shall  define  thq  boundaries  of  the  annual  con- 
ferences. 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Conference  shall,  at  -every  session,  elect  bishops  from 
among  the  elders  throughout  the  Church,  who  have  stood  six  years  in  that  ca- 
pacity. 

Sec.  3.  The  business  of  each  annual  conference  shall  be  done  strictly  accord- 
ing to  Discipline;  and  any  annual  conference  acting  contrary  thereunto,  shall,  by 
impeachment,  be  tried  by  the  General  Confereiace. 

Sec.  4.  No  rule  or  ordinance  shall  at  any  time  be  passed,  to  change  or  do 
away  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  it  now  stands,  nor  to  destroy  the  itinerant  plan. 

Sec.  5.  There  shall  no  rule  be  adopted  that  will  infringe  upon  the  rights  ot 
any  as  it  relates  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  or 
the  washing  of  feet. 

Sec.  6.  There  shall  be  no  rule  made  that  will  deprive  local  preachers  of  thei» 
votes  in  the  annual  conferences  to  which  they  severally  belong. 


—2-1— 

,  Sec.  7.     There  shall  be  no  connection  with  secret  combinations,  nor  shall  in- 
voluntary servitude  be  tolerated  in  any  way. 
Sec.  8.     The  right  of  appeal  shall  be  inviolate. 

ARTICLE  III. 

The  right,  lille,  interest,  and  claim  of  all  property,  whether  consisting  in  lots 
of  ground,  meeting-houses,  legacie-,  l^equests  or  donations  of  any  kind,  obtained 
by  purchase  or  otherwise,  by  any  person  or  persons,  for  the  use,  benefit,  and  be 
hoof  of  the  Church  of  the  Unitid  Breihren  in  Christ,  is  hereby  fully  recognized 
and  held  to  be  the  property  of  the  Church  aforesaid. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

There  shall  be  no  alteration  of  the  foregoing  constitution,  unless  by  request  of 
two  thirds  of  the  whole  society. 


Constitution  as  RecoDunoided  by  the   Commission. 

In  the  name  of  God,  we,  the  members  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren 
in  Christ,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
for  the  more  speedy  and  effectual  spread  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  order  to  produce 
and  secure  uniformity  in  faith  and  practice,  to  define  the  powers  and  business  of 
the  General  Conference  as  recognized  by  this  Church,  and  to  preserve  inviolate 
the  popular  will  of  the  membership  of  the  Church,  do  ordain  this  Constitution  : 

ARTICLE  I. 

Sec.  I.  All  ecclesiastical  power  herein  granted,  to  enact  or  repeal  any  rule  or 
rules  of  Discipline,  is  vested  in  a  general  conference,  which  shall  consist  of  elders 
and  laymen  elected  in  each  annual' conference  district  throughout  the  Church. 
The  number  and  ratio  of  elders  and  laymen,  and  the  mode  of  their  election,  shall 
be  determined  by  the  General  Conference. 

Prcruided,  however,  that  such  elders  shall  have  stood  as  elders  in  the  confer- 
ences which  they  are  to  represent  for  no  less  time  than  three  years  next  preced- 
ing the  meeting  of  the  Geneial  Conference  to  which  they  are  elected  ;  and  that 
such  laymen  shall  be  not  less  than  twenty-five  years  of  age,  and  shall  have  been 
members  of  the  Church  six  years,  and  members  in  the  conference  districts  which 
they  are  to  represent  at  least  three  years  nfixt  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  which  they  are  elected. 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Conference  shall  convene  every  four  years,  and  a  ma- 
jority of  the  whole  number  of  delegates  elected  shall  constitute  a  quorum. 

Sec.  3.  The  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  deliberate  and  vote  together 
as  one  body;  but  the  General  Conference  shall  have  power  to  provide  for  a  vote 
by  separate  orders  whenever  it  deems  it  best  to  do  so;  and  in  such  case=  'he 
concurrent  vote  of  both  orders  shall  be  necessary  to  comple'e  an  action. 


—25— 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Conference  shall,  at  each  session,  elect  bishops  from 
among  the  elders  throughout  the  Church  who  have  stood  six  years  in  that  ca- 
pacity. 

Sec.  5.  The  bishops  shall  be  members  ex-officio  and  presiding  officers  of  the 
General  Conference  ;  but  in  case  no  bishop  be  present,  the  conference  shall  choose 
a  president  pro  tempore. 

Sec.  6.  The  General  Conference  shall  determine  the  number  and  boundaries 
of  the  annual  conferences. 

Sec.  7.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  power  to  revinv  the  records  of 
the  annual  conferences  and  see  that  the  business  of  each  annual  coafcrenceis 
done  strictly  in  accordance  with  ihe  Di-cipline,  and  approve  or  annul,  as  the  case 
may  require. 

Sec.  8.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  control  of  The  United  Brethren 
Printing  Establishment,  The  Home,  Frontier  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society, 
The  Church  Erection  Society,  The  General  Sabbath-School  Board,  The  Board 
of  Education,  and  Union  Biblical  Seminary.  It  shall  also  have  power  to  estab- 
lish and  manage  any  other  organization  or  institution  within  the  Church  which 
it  may  deem  helpful  in  the  work  of  evangelization. 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  power  to  establish  a  court  of  ap- 
peals. 

Sec.  10.  The  General  Conference  may— two  thirds  of  the  members  elected 
thereto  concurring  —  propose  changes  in,  or  additions  to,  the  Confession  of  Faith ; 
provided,  that  the  concurrence  of  three  fourths  of  the  annual  conferences  shall  be 
necessary  to  their  final  ratification. 

.  ARTICLE  II. 

The  General  Conference  shall  have  power,  as  provided  in  Article  I.,  Section  i ., 
of  this  Constitution,  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church ;  nevertheless, 
it  shall  be  subject  to  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions  : 

Sec.  I.  The  General  Conference  shall  enact  no  rule  or  ordinance  which  will 
change  or  destroy  the  Confession  of  Faith;  and  shall  establish  no  standard  of 
doctrine  contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Conference  shall  enact  no  rale  which  will  destroy  the 
itinerant  plan. 

Sec.  3.  The  General  Conference  shall  enact  no  rule  which  will  deprive  local 
preachers  of  their  votes  in  the  annual  conferences  to  which  they  severally  belong. 

Sec.  4.     The  General  Conference  shall  enact  no  rule  which  will  abolish  the 

right  of  appeal. 

ARTICLE  III. 

Sec.  I.  We  declare  that  all  secret  combinations  which  infringe  upon  the  rights 
of  those  outside  their  organization,  and  whose  principles  and  practices  are  injuri- 
ous  to  the  Christian  character  of  their  members,  are  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God, 
and  th"*^  Christians  ought  to  have  no  connection  with  them. 


—26— 

The  General  Conference  shall  have  power  to  enact  such  rules  of  Discipline 
with  respect  to  such  combinations  as  in  its  judgment  it  may  deem  proper. 

Sec.  2.  We  declare  that  human  slavery  is  a  violation  of  human  rights,  and  con- 
trary to  ihe  Word  of  God.     It  shall  therefore  in  no  wise  be  tolerated  among  us. 

I  ARTICLE  IV. 

The  right,  title,  interest,  and  claim  of  all  property,  both  real  and  personal,  of 
whatever  name  or  description,  obtained  by  purchase  or  otherwise,  by  any  person 
or  persons,  for  the  use,  benefit  and  behoof  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren 
in  Christ,  are  hereby  fully  recognized,  and  held  to  vest  in  the  Church  aforesaid. 

ARTICLE  V. 

Sec.  I.  Amendments  to  this  constitution  may  be  proposed  by  any  Genera^ 
Conference — two  thirds  of  the  members  elected  thereto  concurring  —  which 
amendments  shall  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  membership  throughout  the 
Church,  under  regulations  authorized  by  said  conference. 

A  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  upon  any  submitted  amendment  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  its  final  ratification. 

Sec.  2.  The  foregoing  amended  constitution  shall  be  in  force  from  and  after 
the  first  Monday  after  the  second  Thursday  of  May,  .1889,  upon  official  proclama- 
tion thereof  by  the  Board  of  Bishops;  provided,  that  the  General  Conference 
elected  for  1889  shall  be  the  lawful  legislative  body  under  the  amended  constitu- 
tion, with  full  power,  until  its  final  adjournment,  to  enact  such  rules  as  this 
amended  constitution  authorizes. 


Let  every  minister  and  member  of  the  Church  carefully  examine  the 
constitution  and  confession  of  faith  as  they  are  in  the  Discipline,  and  then 
compare  them  with  what  the  commission  recommends,  and  then  when  the 
time  comes  vote  for  or  against  the  work  of  the  commission.  The  time  for 
taking  the  vote  is  set  for  1888.  This  yj\\\  give  ample  time  for  careful 
thought,  and  patient  investigation.  Some  say  the  vote  should  have  been 
taken  sooner,  but  questions  of  so  much  importance  should  not  be  acted 
upon  hastily,  but  with  candor  and  due  deliberation. 

I  have  the  utmost  confidence  in  the  honesty  and  intelligence  of  the  min- 
isters and  members  of  our  Church.  What  they  approve  they  will  affirm 
and  what  they  disapprove  they  will  reject.  The  people  are,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  supreme.  I  am  not  so  tenacious  as  to  the  precise  plan  of 
reaching  the  end.  If  our  constitution  gave  us  in  detail  some  definite  plan, 
then  I  would  say  that  we  should  go  by  that,  but  as  it  does  not,  I  know  of 
no  better  plan  than  to  let  the  General  Conference  devise  ways  and  means 


—27— 

to  reach  the  end.  Any  reasonable  plan  would  have  satisfied  me.  What  I 
most  desired  was  to  get  the  whole  matter  before  the  people  in  a  clear  light, 
and  then  let  them  decide.  This  question  will  never  be  settled  in  any  other 
way.     I  shall  submit  to  the  decision  of  the  majority. 


CHANGE  OF  VIEWS  ON  QUESTIONS  OF  CHURCH  huLlTY. 


Some  men  seem  to  think  that  it  is  a  mortal  sin  for  any  man  to  change 
his  views  on  questions  of  Church  polity.  What  he  believes  to  be  for 
the  best  at  one  time,  he  must  believe  to  be  best  at  all  times.  If  he 
changes  he  has  fallen  from  grace.  Let  me  see,  how  does  that  old 
proverb  lun?  "Wise  men  change,  but  fools  never;"  or  is  it  this  way: 
"Fools  change,  but  wise  men  never?"  Judge  ye.  If  it  is  an  evidence 
of  weakness  and  wickedness  to  change  on  questions  of  Church  polity, 
then  are  we  all  weak  and  wicked.  Take  our  Discipline  as  it  is  to-day 
and  compare  it  with  what  it  was,  ten,  twenty,  thirty,  and  forty  years 
ago,  and  it  will  appear  that  somebody  has  been  weak  and  desperately 
wicked.  Almost  every  rule  has  been  changed,  and  many  new  ones  in- 
serted. Why  is  this?  There  is  but  one  answer:  the  exigencies  of  time 
made  these  changes  necessary,  and  so  it  will  be  in  time  to  come.  Change 
after  change  wUl  occur  in  human  legislation.  Some  changes  may  be  wise» 
and  some  otherwise.  The  confession  of  faith  and  constitution  are  no  more 
divine  than  are  the  general  rules  in  Discipline.  If  the  one  may  be  changed 
why  not  the  other?  Is  it  an  evidence  of  greater  weakness  to  vote  for  a  • 
change  in  the  confession  of  faith  and  constitution  than  it  is  to  vote  for 
a  change  in  the  general  rules  ?     If  so,  why  ? 

Some  of  the  fathers  changed  very  radically,  and  very  rapidly,  not  only 
with  respect  to  general  rules,  but  with  respect  to  the  constitution.  Com- 
pare the  constitution  of  1837  with  the  one  they  adopted  in  1841.  Only  four 
years  had  elapsed,  and  yet  they  made  almost  a  new  constitution.  They 
changed,  added,  and  dropped  out  until  the  one  seems  to  be  a  stranger  to 
the  other.  All  this  in  four  years.  If  it  is  an  evidence  of  weakness  and 
wickedness  to  change  views  on  questions  of  Church  polity,  then  the  fathers 
must  have  been  very  weak  and  wicked. 

I  remember  very  distinctly  when  Bishop  Edwards,  both  in  public  and 
private,  strenuously  opposed  instrumental  music  in  the  Church.  He  wrote 
some  vigorous  articles  against  it.  I  remember  when  he,  and  Bishops 
Glossbrcnner  and  Markwood,  wrote  and  published  an  episcopal  letter, 
urging  our  people  not  to  use  organs  in  the  churches.  He  found  fault  with 
n»e  because  I  thought  it  not  wise  to  sign  that  episcopal  document.  I  re- 
member distinctly  that  at  the  General  Conference  held  at  Lebanon,  Pean- 

28 


—29— 

sylvania,  in  1869,  Bishop  Edwards  advocated  and  voted  for  an  advisory- 
rule  with  respect  to  the  use  of  organs  in  the  churches.  Not  that  he  loved 
instrumental  music  in  the  congregation,  but  because  he  saw  that  it  could 
not  be  kept  out  by  arbitrary  legislation.     I  will  give  his  own  words.     He 

said  :   "I  hate  it  as  much  as  ever I  have  not  changed  from 

that.  But  I  saw  that  we  could  not  keep  it  out  by  this  legislation  ;  I  saw  the 
spirit  of  this  General  Conference ;  and  I  thought  it  one  of  those  things 
upon  which  we  could  compromise,  and  try  the  strength  of  advisoiy 
law.  But  I  still  expect  to  oppose  it."  A  man  to-day  who  changes  his  views 
on  a  question  of  Church  law,  is  branded  as  disloyal.  It  is  not  supposed 
that  he  can  be  opposed  to  an  evil  unless  he  is  in  favor  of  a  certain  form  of 
legislation.  Bishop  Edwards  did  not  think  so.  And  here  I  wish  to  insert 
the  remarks  made  by  Bishop  Dickson  on  the  same  day,  and  on  the  same 
subject,  but  along  a  different  line  of  thought.  I  insert  them  because  they 
are  wise  and  good,  and  very  appropriate  at  this  time : 

"But  in  my  mind,  what  more  threatens  this  beloved  Church  of  ours  than  either 
organs  or  choirs  is  the  spirit  of  insubordination  to  Church  authority.  It  seems 
to  be  assumed  by  some  of  our  people  that  individuals  and  congregations  have  the 
right  to  dictate  to  this  General  Conference  as  to  whether  this  or  that  subject  is  a 
proper  matter  for  our  k  '"'ation.  I  hold  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  this  body 
to  decide  as  to  what  subjects  we  have  a  right  to  legislate  upon.  If  this  and  that 
individual  says,  '  I  won't  obey  this  or  that  law,  because  the  General  Conference 
had  no  right  to  make  it,'  what  is  the  use  of  legislation  ?  what  is  the  use  of  this 
General  Conference?  It  is  my  belief,  friends,  and  I  say  it  with  a  feeling  heart, 
that  this  kind  of  spirit  threatens  the  disruption  of  this  Church.  It  has  been 
openly  declared  here,  not  only  in  this  particular  but  in  other  particulars,  that  the 
congregations  and  individuals  in  the  Church  wil'l  not  submit  to  our  legislation; 
that  they  set  themselves  up  as  umpires  in  these  particulars,  and  say  what  is  right 
and  what  is  wrong,  regardless  of  what  the  General  Conference  may  say.  I 
should  like  for  this  General  Conference  now,  or  at  some  convenient  time,  to 
settle  the  question  whether  it  has  the  right  to  regulate  the  public  worship  of  the 
Church." 

The  views  expressed  by  Bishop  Dickson  at  that  time,  are  my  views  to- 
day. The  General  Conference  has  the  right  to  decide  as  to  what  questions 
it  should  legislate  upon,  and  the  manner  of  reaching  certain  ends.  If  it 
has  no  such  right,  then  who  has?  "What  is  the  use  of  legislation  ?" 
"What  is  the  General  Conference  for  ?"  Insubordination  to  the  authority 
of  the  General  Conference  is  to-day  just  what  it  was  when  Bishop  Dickson 
used  the  foregoing  language.  If  it  were  wrong  then,  it  is  wrong  now.  Let 
wise  men  consider. 


—30— 

I  remember  very  distinctly  that  Bishop  Edwards,  at  the  General  Confer- 
ence held  in  Dayton,  Ohio,  in  1873,  wrote  out  a  paper  with  respect  to  the 
minor  secret  orders,  in  which  he  proposed  a  very  considerable  modification 
of  our  rule.  That  paper  was  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  committee  that 
had  that  part  of  the  Discipline  in  their  care.  Bishop  Edwards  wasone  of 
the  best  and  greatest  men  we  ever  had  in  the  church,  and  yet  I  know  that 
he  changed  his  views  on  many  questions  of  Church  polity.  Was  he  weak? 
Was  he  wicked  ?     No.     He  was  a  progressive  man.     That  is  all. 

A  man  who  has  never  changed  his  views  on  questions  of  Church  polity, 
or  who  has  never  voted  to  change  any  rule  of  Discipline,  is  the  only  man 
who  has  a  right  to  denounce  others  who  may  have  changed.  But  where  is 
that  man  ?  The  Church  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  him.  Possibly  he 
may  be  dead.  Narrow  men  think  it  is  all  right  for  others  to  change,  pro- 
vided they  come  over  to  their  side,  and  think  as  they  do. 


THE  SECRECY  QUESTION. 


Beyond  all  doubt  the  secrecy  question  is  the  absorbing  one  in  the 
Church  to-day.  If  that  question  had  been  involved  in  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1873,  "^  doubt  the  two  thirds  idea  would  have  been  in- 
sisted upon.  We  should  look  at  the  question  fairly.  It  may  be  well  in  the 
first  place  to  give  some  facts  as  they  stand  upon  record  in  the  past.  In  the 
constitution  adopted  in  1837  there  is  not  a  word  on  the  secrecy  question. 
In  the  constitution  adopted  in  1841  the  following  clause  was  inserted: 
"There  shall  be  no  connection  with  secret  combinations."  These  are 
plain,  unambiguous  words.  But  notwithstanding  the  explicit  language  of 
the  constitution,  the  General  Conference,  from  time  to  time,  has  adopted 
just  such  laws  as  it  deemed  wise  and  good. 

At  one  time  the  law  provided  that  members  of  the  Church  who  were 
connected  with  a  secret  order  might  have  a  reasonable  tijiie  in  which  to 
'.;ever  their  connection  with  the  order.  But  who  was  to  determine  as  to 
what  constituted  a  reasonable  time  ?  It  would  seem  that  each  class  or  con- 
ference was  to  decide  this  question  for  itself.  One  might  say  three  months, 
and  another  might  say  ten  months.     The  fathers  adopted  that  rule. 

In  1861  the  General  Conference  adopted  a  law  which  provided  that  those 
who  joined  a  secret  order  should  be  dealt  with  as  in  case  of  other  immorali- 
ties. In  1869  the  General  Conference  adopted  a  law  which  provided  that 
members  of  the  Church  who  should  join  a  secret  order  might  remain  in  the 
Church  for  six  months.  Is  all  this  implied  in  the  constitution  ?  Might  not 
the  General  Conference  have  said  ten  or  twenty  months  just  as  well  as  six 
months?     If  not,  why  not? 

In  1877  the  General  Conference  adopted  a  rule  which  provided  that 
members  of  the  Church  who  joined  a  minor  order  might  remain  in  the 
Church  one  year.  Might  they  not  have  said  two  or  three  years  just  as 
well  as  one  year?  Does  the  constitution  say  anything  about  the  minor 
orders  ?  Does  it  say  anything  about  one  year  ?  Does  it  say  anything 
about  six  months  ?  Not  a  word  of  it.  The  constitution  says,  "  There  shall 
be  U'O  connection  with  secret  combinations."  Just  that  and  nothing  more. 
What  right  had  the  General  Conference  to  name  minor  orders  ?  What 
right  had  it  to  say  six  months  or  one  year?  With  equal  propriety  the 
General  Conference  might  have  adopted  a  rule  allowing  members  of  the 

31 


—32— 

.  lurch  to  hold  slaves  for  a  reasonable  lime,  for  six  months  or  one  year. 
The  constitution  is  no  more  explicit  on  one  question  than  it  is  on  the  other. 
Why  then  this  difference  in  legislation  ? 

The  simple  truth  is  that  the  General  Conference  has  been  unsettled  as 
to  ihe  best  method  of  dealing  with  secret  orders.  While  the  great  majority 
of  our  people  are.  and  always  have  been  opposed  to  secret  orders,  yet  they 
do  not,  and  will  not,  believe  that  all  members  of  all  secret  orders  should 
be  excluded  from  Church  fellowship.  Here  is  where  our  law  broke  down. 
If  the  General  Conference,  without  violating  the  constitution,  could  have 
made  some  discrimination  between  the  major  and  minor  orders  we  would 
not  be  where  we  are  to-day.  But  our  constitution,  as  well  as  the  law  adopted 
in  1877,  met  at  the  door  all  persons  that  belonged  to  any  secret  order, 
and  indiscriminately  turned  them  away.  Many  of  the  older  ministers  and 
members,  whose  fidelity  to  God  and  the  Church  can  not  be  questioned, 
deliberately  turned  against  the  law.  Hundreds  of  the  members  of  the  G. 
A.  R.,  who  were  converted  at  our  altars,  and  for  whom  we  prayed,  when 
they  were  in  the  field  of  deadly  conflict,  were  turned  away  from  our  Church 
door  for  no  offense  save  that  they  belonged  to  some  post  that  had  some 
secret  sign  or  password  in  it.  Many  of  our  people  do  not  believe  that  it  is 
right  to  turn  such  away.  What  is  said  of  the  G.  A.  R.  may  be  said  of  many 
of  the  minor  orders.  But  our  constitution  knows  no  difference.  Any  law 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  that  would  permit  a  member  of  any 
secret  order  to  join  the  Church,  is  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 

Considering  all  the  facts  as  they  stood  before  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence, what  was  the  wisest  and  best  thing  to  do?  (i.)  The  constitution  as 
it  is  simply  excludes  all  the  members  of  all  secret  societies ;  no  matter 
what  their  standing  and  character  in  other  respects  may  be.  (2.)  The  ma- 
jority of  our  ministers  and  members  would  not  enforce  a  law  that  excluded 
all.  These  are  facts  that  we  can  not  ignore,  and  these  are  the  facts  the 
General  Conference  had  to  meet.  How  long  can  a  minority  control  a  ma- 
jority ?  What  then  was  to  be  done  ?  Do  you  say,  leave  the  law  as  it  was  ? 
But  is  it  wise  to  retain  a  law  when  the  majority  will  not  enfore  it?  The 
constitution  recommended  by  the  commission  empowers  the  General  Con- 
ference to  enact  such  rules  of  discipline  with  respect  to  secret  combinations 
as  in  its  judgment  it  may  deem  proper.  Is  this  not  wise?  The  General 
Conference,  if  a  majority  agree  to  it,  m.iy  adopt  a  rule  excluding  the  mem- 
bers of  all  secret  orders.  It  may  if  it  deems  best  adopt  a  rule  of  discipline 
.liscriminating  b.  tween  the  orders.  Under  the  constitution  as  it  is,  the 
General  Conference  could  do  but  one  thing,  which  was  to  exclude  all. 


—33— 

Is  not  the  General  Conference,  composed  of  delegates  elected  by  the 
members  throughout  the  whole  Church,  capable  of  adopting  a  rule  of  dis- 
cipline on  this  question,  as  well  as  other  questions?  This  it  always  has 
done  on  all  questions  of  legislation,  changing  again  and  again,  as  the  exi- 
gencies of  time  seemed  to  demand. 

Every  organization  should  stand  or  fall  upon  its  own  merits  or  demerits. 
Because  the  members  of  some  secret  orders  should  be  excluded,  it  does 
not  follow  that  ail  members  of  all  secret  societies  should  be  excluded,  un- 
less it  can  be  shown  that  secrecy  is  a  sin  per  se.  Some  secret  societies  are 
short-lived,  others  are  simply  beneficiary.  These  orders  are  springing  up 
continually;  some  are  very  objectionable,  while  others  have  but  very  little 
in  them.  Is  not  the  General  Conference  capable  of  adopting  rules  to 
meet  these  cases  as  they  may  come  up?  I  remember  when  the  Grange 
sprang  up  that  Bishop  Edwards  advised  moderation.  He  said  we  must 
have  patience,  and  wait  a  little  until  we  see  what  there  is  in  it.  Does  our 
constitution  advise  moderation  ?  Not  a  bit  of  it.  The  constitution  as 
recommended  by  the  commission  will  permit  the  General  Conference,  from 
time  to  time,  to  adopt  rules  to  meet  each  case  as  it  may  come  up.  If  ten 
years  ago  the  constitution  would  have  permitted  such  legislation  we  would 
not  be  where  we  are  to-day. 


THE  LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

BV    W.   J.    SHUEY. 

Much  has  been  said,  on  both  sides  of  our  church  differences,  with 
respect  to  the  legal  bearings  of  the  acts  of  the  late  General  Conference  in 
the  creation  of  a  commission,  and  its  work  in  preparing  amendments  to 
the  confession  of  faith  and  the  constitution  of  the  Church.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  best  legal  opinion  has  been  consulted,  and  that  those  who  profess 
to  stand  by  these  instruments,  as  adopted  in  1841,  will  finally  possess  all 
the  property  belonging  to  the  Church,  and  be  proclaimed  the  original  and 
only  true  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ ;  also  that  the  General 
Conference  and  all  who  stand  by  it  must  go  out. 

Before  this  was  "  settled  "  by  the  opponents  of  the  General  Conference 
and  the  commission,  our  people  were  advised  not  to  pay  church  and  col- 
lege debts,  because  amendments  to  the  constitution  would  absolve  them 
from  all  moral  obligation  to  meet  their  pledges,  though  solemnly  and 
lawfully  made. 

Singular  views  have  been  promulgated  concerning  law  and  the  principles 
of  common  righteousness.  The  friends  of  the  General  Conference  and  of 
the  work  of  the  commission  have  been  indifferent  to  these  pretensions. 
There  are  many  able  lawyers  in  the  land ;  but  those  who  understand  ques- 
tions of  church  policy  are  not  so  numerous,  and  those  who  know  the  history 
of  the  United  Brethren  Church  laws  are  less  numerous  still. 

We  have,  fortunately,  a  feW  of  these.  We  have  consulted  them,  and 
given  them  abundant  time  to  examine  the  whole  ground.  One  of  these 
gentlemen  has  thoroughly  known  our  legislative  history  for  almost  forty 
years,  and  for  twenty-five  years  has  been  a  successful  lawyer.  He  has 
read  the  Religious  Telescope  closely  for  forty  years,  and  knows  what  has 
been  written  on  both  sides  of  this  vexatious  question.  He  is,  moreover, 
an  earnest  anti-secrecy  man,  and  believes  that  all  secret  orders  will  ulti- 
mately be  put  down  by  the  strong  hand  of  the  law.  We  give  his  views  as 
a  lawyer  on  the  question  at  issue.     We  quote : 

"  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  old  constitution  of  the  Church  was  valid 
and   binding.     Acceptance  and  a  long  acquiescence    is  a  waiver  of  any 

34 


—35— 

irregularities  in  the  adoption  of  a  constitution.  I  am  also  of  the  opinion 
that  if  the  requisite  vote  is  given  to  the  newly  proposed  confession  and 
constitution,  and  they  are  affirmed  and  adopted  by  the  next  General  Con- 
ference, by  delegates  fresh  from  the  people,  they  will  become  a  part  of  the 
organic  law  of  the  Church,  and  will  be  binding  on  all  the  members.  The 
United  Brethren  Church  is  emphatically  a  voluntary  organization.  All  the 
rules  and  regulations  it  has,  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  by  the 
voluntary  society,  in  one  way  or  another,  regularly  and  irregularly.  It  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  a  voluntary  society  can  so  hedge  itself  about  with 
impossible  conditions  that  all  who  come  into  the  society,  in  all  ages,  must 
be  bound  by  the  rules  and  regulations  at  first  adopted,  or  adopted  in  any 
particular  year.  Self-government  is  an  essential  principle  in  such  a  society. 
Had  such  a  society  no  power,  inherent  in  itself,  to  modify  its  religious 
thought,  or  its  rules  and  regulations,  it  might,  and  often  wiuld,  perish  for 
the  want  of  it.  While  the  American  nation  was  in  the  throes  of  a  civil 
war,  strict  constructionists  urged  that  it  had  no  constitutional  power  to  pro- 
tect its  own  life  ;  but  that  doctrine  was  overthrown  twenty  years  ago.  Such 
are  my  views,  and  authorities  could  be  cited;  but  this  is  not  necessary  in 
a  friendly  letter." 

It  has  been  conceded  by  all  parties  for  years,  that  a  literal  and  "strict 
construction"  of  the  amendment  clause  of  the  constitution  renders  any 
and  all  change  in  that  do;umentan  absolute  impossibility.  It  is  an  "im- 
possible condition,"  and  when  adhered  to,  brings  destruction  to  the  Church. 
These  "strict  constructionists''  are  abroad  in  the  Church  now  as  they 
were  in  the  state  during  the  War  of  the  Rebellion.  No  court,  civil  or 
ecclesiastical,  will  sustain  any  such  construction  of  the  fourth  article  of 
our  constitution. 

Again:  we  sought  and  obtained  an  interview  with  a  lawyer  of  twenty 
years'  busy  practice,  and  now  a  judge  of  one  of  the  highest  courts  in  Ohio. 
He  has  read  the  Religious  Telescope  from  his  youth ;  has  made  our  church 
legislation  and  methods  a  study,  as  well  as  the  decisions  of  courts  on 
church  questions.  This  gentleman  does  not  agree  with  the  first  opinion 
just  given,  as  to  the  validity  of  the  present  constitution  without  the  formal 
consent  of  the  people  of  the  Church,  but  in  all  other  respects  acquiesces 
in  the  foregoing  views.  The  first  question  propounded  to  him  related  to 
the  possible  grounds  upon  which  a  legal  action  could  be  predicated  in 
connection  with  the  tenure  of  church  property.  His  reply  was  that  he 
had  thought  the  matter  over  with  care,  and  could  form  no  conception  of 


—36— 

even  the  slightest  foundation  upon  which  an  action  could  be  brought.  He 
said  he  did  not  think  a  lawyer  of  any  standing  could  be  found,  who  would 
attempt  to  formulate  charges  out  of  the  utterly  flimsy  pretexts  which  might 
be  alleged  by  the  opponents  of  the  commission  and  the  General  Con- 
ference. 

The  second  question  presented  was  based  upon  the  supposition  that  a 
civil  action  was  brought  to  test  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  under 
the  present  church  constitution,  in  connection  with  its  amendments  and 
otherwise.  If  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  were  to  decide  that  the 
last  General  Conference  transcended  its  powers  in  the  appointment  of' the 
commission,  and  the  methods  adopted  by  which  the  constitution  and 
confession  of  faith  are  proposed  to  be  amended,  what  would  be  the  effect 
of  such  decision  upon  the  relations  of  the  General  Conference  to  the 
Church,  as  its  highest  governing  body,  and  what  the  effect  upon  the  tenure 
of  church  property — in  other  words,  would  such  a  decision  turn  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  and  all  who  adhere  to  it  out  of  the  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ  and  destroy  their  identity  as  the  Church  of  the  present 
constitution?  He  promptly  and  emphatically  replied,  "No!"  The  only 
effect  such  a  decision  could  have  would  be  to  annul  the  acts  of  the  General 
Conference  relating  to  the  constitution,  and  set  us  back  to  where  we  were 
when  the  Conference  of  1885  convened.  Such  a  decision  would  leave  the 
whole  church  machinery  intact,  precisely  as  it  was  before  the  enactment 
of  such  unconstitutional  laws.  Whoever  dreamed  that  when  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State  or  nation  pronounces  a  law  of  the  legislature  or  of 
Congress  unconstitutional,  such  a  decision  overthrows  the  legislature  or 
Congress,  and  destroys  the  government,  that  those  who  have  opposed 
such  laws  may  step  in  and  assume  its  forfeited  powers  and  possess  the 
property  of  the  people  !  It  is  the  climax  of  absurdity  so  to  hold.  No  sin- 
cere member  of  this  church  can  have  any  interest  in  being  deceived. 
The  General  Conference  and  the  majority  of  the  people  of  this  church 
will  stand  as  the  original  denomination  of  our  fathers. 

In  conclusion,  we  commend  the  opinions  of  the  two  gentlemen  here 
given  to  the  sober  thought  of  our  readers.  They  are  not  chimerical. 
Their  authors  are  living,  level-headed  men,  who  know  the  history  of  this 
church  as  no  other  two  lawyers  on  earth  know  it.  They  do  not  agree  on 
the  secrecy  question,  but  they  do  agree  on  the  law  of  the  case.  Neither 
of  them  is  connected  with  any  secret  order,  and  they  cannot  be  charged 
with  biased  prejudices. 


OTHER  POINTS  OF  LAW  AND  THEIR  APPLICATION. 


We  respectfully  request  all  those  intereited  in  our  church  controversy 
with  respect  to  the  powers  of  the  late  General  Conference  and  the  work  of 
the  Church  commission,  to  devote  their  most  thoughtful  and  impartial 
consideration  to  the  following  points  of  law,  which  we  believe  to  be  easily 
understood,  and  almost,  if  not  quite,  axiomatic  : 

1.  The  «_^^«/ cannot  circumscribe  or  bind  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
the  principal  without  his  consent.  Apply  this  plain  proposition  to  our 
case. 

2.  The  members  of  the  United  Brethren  Church  are  the  priticipal. 
The  General  Conference  is  the  a^ent.  Therefore,  the  General  Conference 
cannot  limit  or  bind  the  powers  of  the  people. 

3.  While  the  agent  cannot  limit  or  bind  the  powers  of  the  principal, 
the  principal  can  limit  or  bind  his  own  powers. 

4.  If  the  General  Conference  of  1841  framed  a  constitution  which  lim- 
ited and  bound  the  powers  of  the  membership  without  submitting  said 
constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  to  be  ratified  by  a  majority  thereof, 
then  such  constitution  is  void  in  law  until  it  is  thus  approved  by  the  mem- 
bership of  the  Church,  thereby  making  it  the  act  of  the  people,  who  are 
the  principal  in  the  case. 

5.  While  there  are  instances  in  which  custom  and  long  usage  have 
crystallized  into  law,  there  are  no  precedents  in  civil  or  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment in  which  custom  and  long  usage  have  made  constitutions,  either 
written  or  unwritten.  Therefore,  our  constitution  is  not  made  valid  by 
long  usage.  The  constitution,  or  "common  law,"  of  England  is  unwritten, 
and  the  ancient  usages  of  the  kingdom  may  be  urged  in  argument  against 
any  proposed  measure  in  Parliament;  but  all  the  laws  of  Parliament  are 
supreme  because  there  is  no  written  and  regularly  established  constitution. 
The  Parliament  cannot  give  to  England  a  written  constitution  without  the 
consent  of  the  people,  whose  agent  it  is. 

6.  The  voice  of  the  people  is  supreme  ;  therefore,  if  our  people  adopt  a 
constitution  which  in  any  wise  conflicts  with  the  laws  of  the  last  General 
Conference,  such  laws  become  void,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  decision 
of  the  people  is  above  the  will  of  the  agent  of  the  people — the  General 
Conference.  On  this  account  the  commission  has  put  into  the  amended 
constitution  a  section  fixing  the  precise  time  when  it  shall  take  effect  after 
the  sitting  of  the  next   General  Conference,  and  legalizing  that  General 

37 


—38— 

Conference  after  the    unamended    constitution   has  passed   away.     The 
people  do  this.     Therefore,  it  is  absolutely  lawful. 

7.  A  legislature  cannot  delegate  to  others  its  legislative  powers.  It  is 
charged  with  this  duty  itself  by  every  well-ordered  constitution,  and  it 
alone  can  perform  it.  No  legislative  power  was  delegated  to  the  com- 
mission, unless  it  is  in  formulating  the  details  of  a  plan  for  submitting  its 
work  to  the  vote  of  the  people.  Civil  constitutions  place  this  latter  duty 
upon  the  legislature.  Our  constitution  (?)  does  not  do  anything  by  way 
of  placing  this  responsibility.  It  gives  no  definite  method  for  its  own 
amendment.  On  this  account  the  commission  creates  precedent  by  the 
authority  of  the  General  Conference,  in  framing  and  executing  a  plan  of 
submission.  The  General  Conference  of  1873  bestowed  the  same  power 
upon  the  Board  of  Bishops.  Disagreement  among  them  prevented  its 
exercise  by  them. 

8.  Constitutions  do  not  fix  tenures  of  property.  The  constitution  may 
be  wholly  changed  by  the  sovereign  power  to  do  so,  and  not  afifect  in  the 
least  the  property  owned  by  such  sovereign  power.  Rightful  ownership 
turns  wholly  upon  identity,  not  upon  constitutions.  The  question  in  law 
must  be.  Is  the  party  claiming  title  the  identical  party  known  in  the  legal 
incorporation  ? 


Those  who  have  feared  that  the  Commission  Act,  with  its  accompanying 
agitation,  would  seriously  retard  the  growth  of  the  Church,  are  requested  to 
consider  the  facts  of  statistics  here  presented. 

At  the  present  writing,  only  one  complete  calendar  year — that  of  1S86— has 
elapsed  since  the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  Year-Book  of  1887 
gives  us  the  result  of  that  j^ear's  work,  the  whole  of  which  was  accomplished 
subsequently  to  the  sitting  of  the  commission. 

A  comparison  of  the  statistics  of  1886  with  those  of  the  preceding  year  shows 
an  increase  in  membership,  church-houses,  itinerant  ministers,  Sabbath-school 
scholars,  teachers,  and  officers,  conversions  in  the  Sunday-school,  and  in  nearly 
every  financial  interest,  especially  in  salaries  of  ministers  and  college  and  sem- 
inary funds,  and  in  total  contributions;  wliile  the  authorities  of  the  Publishing 
House  report  a  larger  circulation  of  literature  than  ever.  Almo.st  every  column 
of  the  chart  shows   an  advance,  and    in  .some  of  them  this   advance    is  very 

DKCIDED. 

Special  attention  .should  be  called  to  a  few  particulars.  It  is  remarkable  that 
in  membership  no  such  increase  has  been  reported  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
Church.  It  was  11,838;  in  round  numbers,  nearly  twei.vr  thousand,  with  a 
corresponding  increa.se  in  Sabbath-.school  scholars.  The  increase  in  the  few 
years  preceding  was  as  follows:  1885,  6,942;  1884,  4.495;  1883,  2,281;  1882  i  835- 
1S81,  decrease,  123;  1880,  increase,  3,039;  1879,  2,565;  1878,  3,468;  1877,  4  882;  1876, 
7,80s;  1S75,  4,217. 

How  much  of  this  increase  was  the  result  of  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, no  man    knows.     But  it  is   plainly  manifest   that  such   action  did  not 

PREVENT    it. 


LAY  DELEGATION. 


The  question  of  lay  delegation  in  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences 
of  the  United  Brethren  Church  has  been  agitating  the  minds  of  the  minis- 
ters for  many  years.  As  early  as  1857  the  constitution  was  referred  to  a 
committee  to  see  if  something  could  not  be  done  to  open  the  way  for  lay 
delegation.  In  1881,  the  General  Conference  provided  for  lay  delegation 
in  the  Annual  Conferences,  which  has  met  with  pretty  general  favor 
among  our  people.  A  large  majority  of  the  Conferences  throughout  the 
Church  have  adopted  lay  delegation,  and  wherever  it  is  well  understood 
and  properly  managed,  it  has  added  interest  and  force  in  our  annual  gath- 
erings. The  tendency  in  nearly  all  the  live  denominations  is  to  unite  the 
laity  and  ministry  more  closely  together.  This  is  as  it  ought  to  be.  They 
should  feel  that  they  are  co  workers  in  the  Master's  vineyard.  God  is 
using  lay  members  in  many  ways  to  bless  his  cause. 

The  question  of  opening  the  way  for  lay  delegation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Church  is  of  greater  importance  than  to  admit  them  into  the 
Annual  Conference.  It  is  in  the  General  Conference  where  the  laws  to 
govern  both  the  ministry  and  laity  are  adopted,  and  it  is  only  just  that  the 
laity  should  have  some  say  in  it.  Upon  the  laity  rests  the  main  burden  of 
supporting  the  Church.  They  furnish  nearly  all  the  money  to  build  our 
colleges  and  houses  of  worship.  They  support  the  ministry,  pay  the  mis- 
sionary money,  and  indeed  nearly  all  the  moneys  expended  in  carrying 
forward  the  various  interests  of  the  Church,  and  yet  they  have  no  voice  in 
making  the  laws  and  adopting  the  rules  by  vvhich  all  these  interests  are  to 
be  governed. 

Among  the  aggressive  and  progressive  denominations  we  stand  almost 
alone.  While  it  may  be  that  we  are  a  little  better  than  others,  it  is  not 
apparent  that  we  have  accomplished  more  than  others  in  the  last  hundred 
years.  Nearly  all  the  large  denominatfons,  (except  may  be  the  Roman 
Catholic,)  have  lay  delegates  in  their  legislative  bodies.  What  harm 
would  likely  come  to  the  Church  if  forty  or  fifty  of  our  good  laymen 
were  among  the  delegates  in  the  General  Conference? 

But  our  constitution,  as  it  is,  cuts  them  off.  The  lay  members  should 
remember  that  in  voting  against  the  amended  constitution,  as  recom- 
mended by  the  commission,  they  vote  against  their  own  rights.  They  will 
say  by  that  vote  that  they  should  not  have  a  voice  in  the  legislative  body 

39 


—40- 

in  the  Church.  Those  who  from  one  cause  or  another  think  it  best  not  to 
vote  at  all,  are  virtually  voting  against  their  own  rights.  Signing  protests 
and  petitions  when  the  people  have  the  chance  to  vote,  will  amount  to 
nothing  at  all.  Protests  and  petitions,  when  the  people  have  had  no 
chance  to  vote,  should  always  be  treated  with  great  respect.  But  when  a 
small  minority  take  it  upon  themselves  to  ignore  the  authority  of  the  leg- 
islative body  of  either  church  or  state  and  adopt  a  m  f'lod  of  their  own,  it 
must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  fall  to  the  groun  .  Why  send  a  peti- 
tion or  protest  to  a  body  whose  authority  they  ignore,  when  the  mem- 
bers shall  have  had  a  fair  chance  to  express  their  will  by  a  vote  that  will 
stand  ? 

Our  lay  members  should  remember  that  this  is  the  first  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church  when  they  will  have  a  chance  to  vote  on  this  question. 
The  constitution  as  it  now  is  was  formulated  and  adopted  by  ministers 
alone.  But  it  is  now  proposed  that  ministers  and  lay  members  vote 
together,  and  thereby  settle  the  question  of  lay  delegation  in  the  General 
Conference.  A  large  majority  of  the  ministers  throughout  the  Church 
will  vote  when  the  time  comes,  and  nearly  all  of  them  will  vote  in  favor  of 
lay  delegation  in  the  General  Conference.  Those  who  refuse  to  vote, 
silently,  but  none  the  less  surely,  virtually  vote  against  lay  delegation. 

I  want  our  lay  members  to  understand  the  whole  question.  Some  have 
told  me  that  when  they  signed  that  petition,  or  protest,  they  did  not  under- 
stand the  whole  question.  But  now  they  interided  to  vote  when  the  time 
came.  Members  who  feel  like  voting  against  the  recommendations  of  the 
commission,  have  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  What  I  want,  and  all  I  want, 
is  for  our  members  to  understand  the  whole  question,  and  then  vote  their 
sentiments.  If  lay  delegation  in  the  General  Conference  is  wrong,  then 
vote  against  it;  but  if  it  is  right,  vote  for  it.  Let  no  one  be  deceived  by 
supposing  that  his  name  attached  to  a  protest  or  petition  will  have  the 
same  weight  with  the  General  Conference  that  his  vote  would  have. 
Ten  thousand  votes  against  the  work  of  the  commission  will  have  more 
weight  with  the  General  Conference  than  five  times  that  number  of  names 
attached  to  a  petition  or  protest.     Do  you  ask  why?     My  answer   is  this: 

1.  The  members  will  have  had  a  fair  chance  to  vote  their  sentiments,  and, 

2.  ft  will  be  in  evidence  that  a  considerable  number  who  signed  the  peti- 
tion or  protest  alterward  changed  their  mind  and  voted.  I  trust  that  all 
our  members  will  investigate  the  whole  question,  and  then  vote  their 
sentiments.  J.  Weaver. 


DATE  DUE 

APR    ! 

'■\  1996 

■ 1 

n »      >          ' 

. 

HtGHSMITH  #4 

5230 

Primed 
hi  USA 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Manu/actuteJ  by 

©AYLORD  BROS.  loe. 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Stockton,  CaW. 


